
CUBA 




THE UNITED STATES. 



Remarks ox the Hon. Chas, Sumner's speech, delivered 

at the Republican Convention of Massachusetts, 

the 2 2d September, 1869. 



(Adopted ami approved by the Central Republican .Junto of 
Cuba, and Porto-Biro.) 



NEW YORK : 
STYLES & CASH, PRINTERS AND STATIONERS, 

9 5 ElCHTH A?KS1'B. 

186!). 





CUBA 



BEFORE 



THE UNITED STATES. 



Remarks on the Hon. Chas. Sumner's speech, delivered 

at the Republican Convention of Massachusetts, 

the 2 2d September, 1869. 



(Adopted and approved by the Central Republican Junta of 
Cuba and Porto-Rico.) 



NEW YOEK : 

STYLES & CASH, PRINTERS AND STATIONERS, 

95 Eighth Avenue. 

1869. 



46782 






/<x 



7 %^ 



CUBA BEFORE THE UNITED STATES. 



When, in the midst of the atmosphere of sympathy and 
good-will that prevails in this country for the Republic of 
Cuba, a strange voice is raised to attempt to smother this 
liberal sentiment, we can not but be affected as unexpectedly 
and disagreeably as if we heard a harsh discordant note in a 
melodious harmony. Then the astonished mind instinctively 
turns to seek the source of the discord, and to discover whence 
proceeds so un-American, illiberal, and unchristian a voice, 
that does not know how to sympathize, heart and soul, with 
the Cuban people in their struggle to force themselves from 
the grasp of Spain, whose tyranny they have suffered for 
more than three centuries. 

If, upon investigation, it had been found that this voice 
was prompted by lucre, or based on mercantile calculations 
more or less selfish, the mind might perhaps have returned to 
its former tranquility and confidence, and, relying on the vir- 
tues of this great American people, overlooked and possibly 
forgot the painful interruption. 

But when we recognize in that voice, so inimical to Cuba, 
that of a statesman whose talents and character place him in 



a position as exalted as merited — the voice of Charles Sumner, 
the abolitionist, the republican leader, the senator of the great, 
illustrious, and cultivated people of Massachusetts — the im- 
pression is, indeed, affecting, and more difficult to erase. 

We can, however, ascertain, in spite of this impression, that 
neither the Republic of Cuba nor the Cubans who reside in 
this hospitable land have ever feared that the feelings of the 
American people in favor of their cause would be diminished. 
No ! they can not be afraid of it. The cause of Cuba is the 
cause of America against Europe — the cause of liberty against 
tyranny — the cause of justice against ignorance and iniquity. 

The people who cherish with love and respect among 
their dearest political dogmas the principle generally known 
as the Monroe doctrine ; the people of self-government, the 
victorious advocate of the rights of man and individual sover- 
eignty ; the people who have shed so much blood and sacrificed 
so many millions for the liberation and restoration to their 
natural rights of four millions of slaves, thus removing the 
only stain that tarnished their splendor ; the people who have 
diffused the Christian civilization above all, and carried, with 
the stars and stripes of their glorious flag, ideas of liberty and 
manly independence ; can this people ever sympathize with 
the old oppressor of America — Spain — the bigoted, intolerant, 
and persistent upholder of slavery and slave-trade, whose his- 
tory of the war Avaged in Cuba during the past year is stained 
with so many crimes and horrors ? 

No ! the poignancy of the hostile words of Charles Sumner 
comes not from the fear that the American people, or the dis- 
tinguished orator himself, can have other than sentiments of 



repugnance toward Spain. These feelings will, perhaps, be 
more or less perceptible or avowed, but never less intense. 
Spain is thoroughly conscious of the fact herself, because her 
own instincts make known the fact they are well-deserved. 

But this vacillating and delaying manner in the assistance 
we solicit of the American Government, and which this coun- 
try fervently desires, because it is consistent with its prin- 
ciples, sentiments, and convenience, postponing the aid to 
which our newly-born Republic has so many indisputable 
claims, bring forth sad and deplorable consequences, viz., the 
unavailing shedding of generous blood, the destruction and 
ruin of wealth in the island, and the continuation of the hor- 
rors of Spanish warfare, which offer to the astonished world 
a dark theme of scandal and shame. 

The Hon. Charles Sumner can not, nor does he, sym- 
pathize with Spain, a nation that has dethroned one dynasty 
only to go, like a poor beggar, on the fruitless errand of 
searching among the would-be monarchs of Europe one who 
would deign to accept a crown trammeled as it would be with 
the conditions of the old regime, the habits and prejudices of 
the very same men, and the deficiencies of the same institu- 
tions — a domineering community clinging to its errors, so that 
they will even now uphold slavery, establishing on it a tax 
which insures the existence of that inhuman institution for at 
least five years to come. 

The Hon. Charles Sumner only wishes to restrain, slightly, 
the noble impulse of the American people, and check the 
magnetic attraction which draws them toward us. He wishes 
to wait for the proof of two facts which he considers neces- 



sary. Should such proof actually exist — could it be placed 
before his eyes with that degree of evidence wanted for convic- 
tion — sure it is that his great intelligence would not hesitate 
a moment, but be guided by its instincts in obedience to his 
natural sympathies. The honorable senator from Massachu- 
setts will then become (it is to be expected) the most decided 
champion, the most fervent friend of the Eepublic of Cuba. 

This, and no other, is, in our mind, the right interpretation 
of his discourse, delivered on the twenty-second day of Sep- 
tember, 1869, at the Republican Convention of Massachusetts. 

Before recognizing or granting belligerent rights, he 
desires that the belligerence be proved. u It must be proved" 
Before taking a decisive step in favor of the Cubans, he wishes 
to know whether the Cubans have, or have not, abolished 
slavery. " Until this is settled, we must wait.' 11 

It is truly fortunate for us to find the question reduced to 
so simple a form. Thus, we are enabled to keep aloof from 
the affair of the Alabama claims, which in no way affects 
Cuba, and should not, therefore, exert any unfavorable influ- 
ence on her rights and interests. 

We feel, however, that both the ideas of sending to Cuba 
prompt, efficacious, and decisive help, and of claiming from 
England just retribution for her practical and manifest hos- 
tilities against the American Union during the four years of 
the secession war, far from being contradictory to each other 
are, in reality, so perfectly harmonious as to constitute two 
different forms for expressing the same thought. 

Both mean the exclusion of Europe from American ques- 
tions, and abstention from all interference or influence in the 



countries of the New World. Both imply the punishment and 
redress for a decided hostility towards this great Republic, still 
less dissembled, and undoubtedly more outspoken on the part 
of Spain than of England. Both imply that it is impossible 
to maintain, or even to sympathize with, a system which is 
based on slavery and on the degradation of man. Both — 
why proceed further f Does it not suffice to prove that both 
ideas are. harmonious and not in contradiction to each other, 
to find them united and cherished by a large and respectable 
portion of this people ? Are they not conjointly sustained at 
the same time by some of their most distinguished public men 
of every party ? Do not the majority of the people, whose 
common sense is so accute, view them as two subjects having 
equal claim to their support ? 

We hold, and experience confirms our assertion, that the 
two parallel questions of the Alabama claims, and the recog- 
nition and aid to the Republic of Cuba, can be certainly 
maintained without any incoherence or contradiction. But we 
repeat, that we ought not to meddle with a question which is 
not our own 5 and that, looking into our state of affairs, and 
considering it in the light in which Mr. Sumner has placed it, 
we can not but congratulate ourselves on finding we are free 
to undertake a legal and historical discussion which offers 
little interest to most readers, and is in fact tiresome to many. 

The great republican organ of this city, the Tribune, in 
its edition of the twenty-seventh of July, asserted that the 
Hon. Charles Sumner was incapable of making the rights of 
the Cubans, or any free people, subservient to a question of 
interest, and that no doubt he is waiting for the patriots of 



Cuba to give true evidence that they are defending the cause 
they have at heart with force and decision, and that he may 
be the first to advise their recognition. 

Even had the Tribune not thus expressed itself, we should 
have come to the same conclusion, because it is not possible 
to imagine so distinguished a statesman occupying a position 
inconsistent with his political antecedents and his whole bril- 
liant public career. 

But inasmuch as the honorable senator, in his speech of 
September 22, has expressed himself in so clear and pointed 
a manner, we are not left to conjecture his action in the con- 
tingency referred to. 

Let us, therefore, proceed to satisfy the republican orator, 
and lay before him the proofs that he requires. 



I. 

Mr. Sumner maintains, and with reason, that " belligerence 
" is a fact attested by evidence." " If the fact does not exist," 
says he, " there is nothing to recognize. The fact can not be 
" invented or imagined ; it must be proved." 

He adds, elsewhere, that "a, nation recognizing belligerence, 
11 where it does not exist in fact, becomes a wrong-doer." 

Accepting these doctrines, it is easy to demonstrate that 
the belligerence of the Cubans is a fact, neither imagined nor 
supposed, but perfectly proved ; that the Eepublic of Cuba 
exists as a nation de facto, independent and free; and that the 



9 

recognition we demand, and that the American people at the 
same time desire, far from being a bad act, would be but the 
yielding to evidence and the execution of an act of justice. 

" I know that the Cubans are in arms," says Mr. Sumner, 
u but where are their cities, towns, and provinces ? Where 
" is their government ? Where are their ports ? Where their 
u tribunals of justice ? Where their prize courts ? To put 
" these questions," he adds, u is to answer them. How then is 
i( the fact of belligerence ? " 

We are ignorant upon what ground the belligerence of a 
people, which the honorable senator himself justly says is but 
a simple fact, should be complicated with the possession of sea- 
ports and prize courts. It would appear that, completely for- 
getting the native simplicity of the fact which he desires to 
have proved, he has taken pains to complicate it by accumu- 
lating unnecessary circumstances which, in some cases, might 
be impossible. 

Belligerence is a fact extremely simple in its nature. A 
belligerent is one who makes war. JBellum gerere. The 
moment that one people is in arms against another, or the 
people of a section against another belonging to the same com- 
munity, from that moment the fact of belligerence is established. 
They might be two inland countries, hence without sea coasts, 
seaports, and, consequently, without prize courts ; and certainly 
such deficiency should not render impossible the fact of belli- 
gerence, nor make it in any way less positive and unworthy to 
be recognized. 

To be in arms is precisely the point in question ; and for a 
period of more than thirteen months the Cubans not only have 



10 

held their own against the Spaniards, but the strength of their 
revolution has been enough to cause the annihilation of a great 
Spanish army, and so spread itself over two-thirds of the 
island. Further than this, the Cubans have attacked the 
Spaniards in their stronghold, carrying away what they 
needed, as they have done in Puerto Principe, and lately in 
Las Tunas, defeating them in the ever-memorable engage- 
ments of Baire, Siguanea, the heights of La Cruz, Las Minas, 
Sabana Nueva, Puerto del Padre, Manati, Ramon, and in 
many others of less importance in which the Fabian policy has 
been a wonderful success. 

Belligerence is neither a principle nor a right ; it is an 
act. As soon as a party rises to arms and carries • on a war, 
it becomes a combatant — a belligerent. More than this, when 
a civil war is lighted up in a nation, the opposing parties can 
not be considered by neutral governments other than inde- 
pendent. ( Vattel : Book iii. chapter 14.) This is the rec- 
ognized practice among the nations, and the doctrine still held 
by this government in some analogous circumstances. 

When, in 1836, the flag of Texas was admitted into the 
port of New York, the language of the State Department at 
Washington was as follows : 

" It was notorious that, in the former wars between Spain 
" and her South- American colonies, the ships of the provinces 
" had been admitted from the commencement of the revolu- 
" tion into the ports of the United States, whatever the flag 
" might have been, and that it was not less certain that, in the 
" different internal struggles which had happened in these 
" same States, the ships of either party had been admitted." 



n 

Therefore, it is not only the international law but the 
practice hitherto observed by this government that cause 
the Cuban people to be entitled to the recognition they 
desire. They must be regarded as an independent Power, 
and their flag admitted into the ports of the Union in the 
same manner as Texas in 1836. 

To the preceding declaration, the Secretary of State 
added these remarkable and important words : u It had 
"never been considered necessary to make a proclamation 
" with respect to the extension of the right of hospitality, 
*' or to balance the probabilities of success, or to determine 
<( these points definitively, having judged it sufficient that 
" one of the parties had proclaimed its independence, and 
" had maintained it in a positive manner. Such has 
li been the policy hitherto followed by the United States." 

In consequence of this doctrine, which Mr. Sumner will 
no doubt respect, is it proper to inquire whether the progress 
of the war in Cuba is or is not favorable to the Cubans ? 
Must it be considered whether the Cuban people has, or 
has not, the probability of success ? Will the United States 
of America, setting aside the policy always followed by them, 
look upon the Cuban question in such a different point of 
view, and balance the probabilities of a final triumph ? 

No. The American Government and Mr. Sumner, in 
accordance with both law and practice, are bound to recog- 
nize the Republic of Cuba as an independent nation. Let 
this be done, and sixty days will be enough to cause the 
Cuban flag to predominate throughout the whole extent of 
the island. 



12 

We ought not to inquire, then, where are their victories, 
their towns, and their cities. We ought only to consider 
whether a declaration of independence has been proclaimed, 
and whether they have maintained it in a positive manner. 

To put these questions, we also say, is to answer them. 
The facts are notorious, and must be admitted. 

The American nation is not neutral in this conflict. 
Her sympathies are all with the people of Cuba, and with 
her sympathies, her interests, as well as that political at- 
traction mentioned by the last President in one of his mes- 
sages. 

Why, then, disregard these precedents, and act in con- 
tradiction to those interests and those sympathies, requiring 
from Cuba what has not been asked in the other cases ? 
Why not rely on respectable authorities like Vattel, Whea- 
ton, and others, and PROCEED in the actual case, as this 
same government did in 1836 ? Why establish an unfound- 
ed distinction between cases that do not differ in any way % 

But, proceeding in the task of answering the questions 
of Mr. Sumner, can we believe that he is the only American 
who does not know that the Republic of Cuba has an actual 
existence, and that she possesses a territorial extent that 
comprises about two-thirds of the whole island ? Does he 
not know that in all this portion of the country the Span- 
iards only hold a few places on the sea-coast, and a few in- 
significant and isolated towns ? Does he not know that in 
the large towns under their control they are besieged, de- 
prived of all kinds of resources, and unable to supply them- 
selves, except by continued fighting, involving the loss of 



) 



13 

many convoys taken by the insurgents'? Is lie not aware 
that they have an established government, acting in the 
most regular manner ? Does he not know that they have a 
Congress, that holds its sessions in the town of Guaimaro, 
has invested with authority the President, organized the 
country, discussed and voted a provisional Constitution ? Is 
it new to him that they have Ministers and Envoys in this 
Republic, in that of Mexico, Venezuela, Peru, France, and 
in England ? Does he doubt that the Eepublic of Peru has 
recognized that of Cuba as an independent nation, and that 
other South American Republics have granted to her bellig- 
erent rights ? 

The Hon. Charles Sumner is aware of all this. In fact, 
he could not ignore it. He has said that slavery had been abol- 
ished and afterward re-established by a decree. If no regular 
government exists in Cuba, could the decree abolishing slav- 
ery be annulled by another decree, as he supposes ? In either 
case, an executive organization was indispensable ; such an 
organization constitutes the government he requires. 

One of the best proofs we have of the belligerence of the 
Cubans, and of the existence of the Republic of Cuba as a 
de facto independent power, can be seen in the irrecusable 
acknowledgment that the Spanish party have recently made 
in Havana. 

There is nothing more Spanish or more Anti-Cuban than 
the senseless organ of the volunteers named il La Voz de 
Ctiba." Let us read in its edition of October 11, 1869, the 
article reproduced by the papers of this city, in which the 
Spanish writer urges the volunteers to go to the field, and 



14 

laments the loss of the 26,000 men of the regular army 
which have fallen in battle with the Cubans. We shall find 
there these important and very significant words: " Shall we 
"have to repeat that in Guaimaro, within four days' travel of 
" Havana, two of them by sea, the flag of the traitors was 
" unfurled eight months ago, and that, in spite of us, is waving 
" still with arrogancy and defiance V that the insurgents hold 
" there their Congress, enact laws and decrees, publish their 
"journals, and perform all the acts of sovereignty ?" 

The Spanish organ has answered Mr. Sumner. Let him say, 
in the presence of these facts, whether the belligerence of the 
Cubans is not thoroughly demonstrated. 



II. 



The second point in the Cuban question to be examined, 
in the opinion of the Hon. Charles Sumner, is the one in rela- 
tion to the abolition of slavery. 

" There is another question in their case," says he, " which 
" is with me final. Even if they come within the prerequisites 
"of international law, I am unwilling to make any recognition 
" of them so long as they continue to hold human beings as 
"slaves. A decree, in May last, purporting to be signed by 
" Cespedes, abolished slavery ; but I am not sure of this de- 
" cree, especially in view of another, in July, purporting to 
" come from the same authority, maintaining slavery. Until 
" this is settled we must wait" 



15 

If that is the only thing to he waited for ; if that is the 
only obstacle to be removed ; if the cause of the freedom of 
the colored people is as final with Mr. Sumner as he assures 
us ; long since the Republic of Cuba ought to have been rec- 
ognized and openly assisted by the United States in its 
struggle against the Spanish Government. Because it is 
Spain, not Cuba, the upholder of slavery ; because it is Cuba, 
not Spain, who has abolished slavery, and granted to the 
freedmen the same rights bestowed on the white men, their 
brothers. 

Our minister in Washington has officially answered the 
erroneous assertions of the honorable senator. We consider 
him fully convinced in face of an evidence of such a formal 
and authorized character. We wish to show, however, by 
means of facts drawn from history, that the Cubans have 
always abhorred slavery, while the Spanish Government has 
been, and still is, the upholder of that institution as a medium 
of control in the island. Although, at the same time, the most 
complete evidence will be derived that, by arising obstacles in 
this country, by the progress of the revolution in Cuba, and by 
not giving to the Cubans the aid and resources they want, the 
cause of the maintenance and perpetuation of slavery is ef- 
fectually favored and sustained. So it will be seen by what 
singular means and ways the honorable senator — an aboli- 
tionist — and this government — a republican one — allowing 
everything to the Spaniards and granting nothing to the 
Cubans, are efficiently working for holding in chains, under 
slavery, the colored people of that portion of the island where 
the decrees of our government can not be carried into practice 



16 

yet. What a curious spectacle to be witnessed by our age : the 
leaders of abolitionism in this country going hand in hand 
with the slave-holders and the slave-traders in Havana ! 

Cuban people have always been the most earnest enemies 
of slavery and slave-trade. They have always understood 
the demoralizing effects of that institution. They have always 
looked upon slavery as a great obstacle in the consummation 
of the most noble and holy aspiration of their lives — the free- 
dom of their native country. 

As far back as the year 1794, our distinguished country- 
man, Francisco de Arango, claimed and urged Spain to destroy 
slavery and encourage white immigration in the island of Cuba. 
Never has any Cuban, distinguished or not distinguished, pub- 
lished or written anything whatever in favor of slavery. We 
can also affirm that while the Cubans were so strongly decided 
in such a course of justice and convenience, Spain and the 
Spanish residents in the island did their utmost to maintain 
the slave-trade and so increase and perpetuate slavery, en- 
forcing laws and persecuting as rebels and traitors those who 
opposed it. 

Among the most remarkable facts we can bring forth, in 
relation to our statement, must be remembered the address 
made to the Captain-Greneral of the Island on the twenty-ninth 
of November, 1843, signed by ninety-two Cuban planters. 
" The time has come, your Excellency," said they, " to put 
" an end in this country to that illegal traffic, shame of our 
" civilization, horrid abyss where all our hopes of security and 
u future welfare are buried, hydra that frightens the capitalists 



17 

" and prevents them coming to establish themselves on our 
" shores, and drives off those who have acquired their riches 
" here to carry them to other places where they may enjoy 
u the fruits of their labor without fearing any disturbance." 

D. Leopold O'Donnell was at the time the captain-general 
of the island. His despotism, even unequaled by the most 
absolute Pacha, grew wild with that address. He had it laid 
aside in the archives, refusing to consider it or to pay any 
attention to the signers, and dismissed them with a severe 
warning. (Zamora, u Biblioteca" : Art. "Esclavos." Cochin: 
" Abolition de l'Esclavage," ii. 213.) 

The Cubans were not discouraged by this disappointment. 
In February, 1844, the most respectable natives of Havana 
signed another address of the same purport. General O'Don- 
nel considered that step like an act of rebellion, and, reddened 
with anger, took the paper and tore it into pieces in the pres- 
ence of the committee who had delivered it to him. 

O'Donnell received one ounce ($17) for every negro landed 
in Cuba ; and according to the English Commissary's report, 
quoted by Cochin, he put to death, by whipping and shooting, 
more than three thousand of those wretched beings, and sent 
to exile about one thousand more ! 

In 1849, Domingo de Groicouria, one of the Cuban generals, 
addressed ex-Queen Isabella, submitting to her a scheme for 
the immigration of white families into the island, and for the 
division of labor in the sugar-plantations, the final result of 
which should have been the practical extinction of slavery. 
This scheme was laid before the officers of the Ministry in 
Madrid. 

2 



18 

In 1854, the Spanish Government was compelled to treat 
that question. The Earl of San Luis, then the Premier, 
wrote a message to the Queen, .suggesting to her some royal 
decrees in reference to this matter ; and it is very curious to 
bring to mind the strange and sometimes cynical assertions 
stamped by him in his work. He never spoke of the treaties 
agreed to with England on the slave-trade without adding in 
a regretful tone this phrase : " in whatever way these treaties 
11 may he qualified.'''' He always argued that " slavery was a 
u necessity in Cuba, and unavoidable its maintenance, in spite 
" of all its inconveniences." He went even so far as to propose 
favoring by all means, in the island of Cuba, the increase of 
the negro population, "of that necessary race," as he said, and to 
advise the slaveholders u to devote large sums of their money to 
11 the reproduction and breeding of the slaves, as it happens in 
u other countries! " 

It has always been so evident that all the blame, in regard 
to slavery and slave-trade, is on the part of Spain and of the 
Spanish residents in Cuba, that the English Government did 
not hesitate to consign this fact for permanent preservation in 
an important document. Lord Aberdeen stated in a diplom- 
atic note, dated the second of May, 1844, that the officers of the 
Spanish Crown were greatly interested in the maintenance of 
the slave-trade, the cupidity of the government being the true 
cause of this inhuman trade having been imposed on the 
colony, notwithstanding its obvious dangers, and the great dis- 
satisfaction of the Cuban proprietors, with the only object to 
enrich the captain-general. 

Some time after, Lord Howden, the English Premier, ad- 



19 

vised the Spanish. Government of the necessity of abolishing 
slavery in the colonies • and it is noteworthy the answer given 
by the Marquis of Miraflores, Spanish Minister of Foreign 
Affairs at the time, drawing the noble lord's attention on the 
damages that would be inflicted by such an action upon the 
prosperity and welfare of the subjects of Her Majesty in the 
island of Cuba. Lord Howden replied that, following these 
logical and well-founded principles, it was required likewise 
to procure the prosperity and welfare of so many thousands of 
negro slaves, who were also the subjects of Her Majesty, and 
entitled on that account to her motherly benevolence and 
protection. 

The Spaniards have always been the leaders of slavery and 
slave-trade. Zulucta, who used to mark his negroes with a Z, 
generally impressed on their abdomen by a can-dent iron, is to 
day a colonel of the voluntaries, powerful in Havana, and has 
devoted himself to the slave-trade with such a boldness that, 
notwithstanding his influence, has been tried and confined as 
a prisoner in a fortress for a short time. Another wealthy 
Spaniard, Baro, used also to mark his slaves with a B ; 
Duraflona, Pla, Argudin, Duran y Cuervo, Calvo — everybody 
knows them in Havana as prominent slave-traders. Every- 
body in Cuba is also convinced that the words Spaniard and 
upholder, or at least furtherer, of slavery and slave-trade are 
synonymous. 

On the contrary, how many leading Cubans have been 
persecuted for their opinions on the abolition of slavery : For£, 
Antonio Saco, Domingo del Monte, Benigno Gener, G-aspar 
Betancourt Cisneros, Jose" de la Luz, Manuel Martinez, Serrano, 



20 

and many others have been imprisoned, or banished, or compel- 
led to fly away from their country on that account. Who 
does not know the careful watchfulness exercised over the 
Cubans for their sympathies, so strongly marked toward the 
cause of the Union, during the great rebellion of the South. 

As soon as any act of abolitionism was accomplished, the 
interference of the government became inevitable. A worthy 
family of Havana decided to commemorate Christmas by free- 
ing all their slaves, twenty-eight in number. They did so ; 
but afterward were compelled to call on the Captain-General 
Dulce, who showed himself uneasy by this act, to explain 
their conduct and present their apologies. 

Another family, Owner of a sugar plantation, decided also 
to have christened as free every colored child born on the 
estate. The pastor became alarmed by the repetition of ihese 
kinds of baptisms, and giving notice to the governor of the 
locality, they met with difficulties and had to apologize. 

In 1865, several Cubans intended to enter into an associa- 
tion with the view of stopping the slave-trade. At first the 
governor of the island, General Dulce, seemed to authorize 
the projects ; but soon after withdrew his permission, not even 
allowing the association to be officially constituted. 

The reading of the Havana leading journals during the 
late war of the United States would be enough proof in favor 
of our assertion. The Diario de la Marina, a Spanish news- 
paper, was openly confederate. None has surpassed it cari- 
caturing and indulging gross insults on President Lincoln and 
on the republican party. It was the author of the epithet 



21 

" cal y canto " applied to General Stonewall Jackson. Cap- 
tain Semmes, its favorite hero, was named a " campecharro." 
The very day that the surrender of Pittsburg was announc ed 
it proclaimed the triumph of the South more than ever sure ! 
u El Siglo" a Cuban leading journal, on the contrary, always 
liberal, always federal, and always favoring abolitionism, never 
failed to express these opinions as far as the government's 
censorship allowed. 

On the other hand, the feeling of the colored people in 
Cuba is an includable fact in our favor. They love the 
Cubans and hate the Spaniards ; more than hate the 
Spaniards — they look on them with contempt. Nothing is com- 
pared to the disdain with which they call them " gallego " or 
" Catalan ." The worst insult that can be offered to a colored 
woman is to suppose her the mistress of a Spanish bodeguero. 

Now, after the September revolution in Spain, and of such 
boasted liberalism, has not Marshal Serrano said to Emilio 
Castelar that he ought to have in mind the existence of slavery 
in Cuba ? Has he not been seen complying with that execra- 
ble institution ? Nevertheless, the Spanish Government 
might have had a good precedent to take a decisive step in 
regard to the slaves. 

In 1866, by the order of the Spanish Government, twenty- 
two commissioners of Cuba and Porto Rico met at Madrid to 
manifest their views on the government and administration of 
the colonies. The labors of this assembly demonstrated a dis- 
position on the government, and its appointed representatives, 
in favor of slavery^ and an open and firm desire and re- 



22 

commendation to emancipate the slaves on the part of the com- 
missioners elected by Cuba. 

Of the commissioners, fourteen signed the report in favor 
of emancipation ; of those who did it, Nicholas Azcurate is at 
Madrid, a well-known abolitionist ; Jose Antonio Echevenia is 
expelled from Havana ; and Jose Morales Lemus is our Cuban 
Minister in Washington. 

Among the commissioners not elected by the Cuban cor- 
porations, but appointed by the government, is to be found the 
only report against emancipation. 

Where, therefore, these facts being undoubted, does Mr. 
Sumner find reasons to suspect the real abolitionary feeling of 
the Cubans 1 

The question is at present perfectly settled. It would not 
be just to wait any longer. Neither the honorable senator, nor 
the administration, nor this great American people, can desire 
he Cuban freedmen to be enslaved again by the Spaniards, 
nor that this blood people shall continue in their national 
system of holding human beings as slaves. 

We have finished our task. Both of the two facts that 
were to be proved, in the opinion of the honorable senator of 
Massachusetts, have been plainly demonstrated. Cuba is a 
belligerent and an independent country. Cuba has abolished 
slavery and proclaimed the absolute equality of rights, ac- 
cording to the moral law, and the christian principle of uni- 
versal fraternity. 

What else is required ? 

May the honorable senator, following the example of his dis- 



tinguished friends, the most eminent leaders of the republican 
party in this country, and obeying his own philanthropic and 
christian feelings, come decidely to our aid, to support our 
noble cause, with all the strength of his powerful mind and in- 
fluence ! May he be, like Mr. Rawlins, Mr. Butler, Mr. 
Wade, Mr. Beecher, Mr. Banks, and many other prominent 
republicans, an earnest and enthusiastic defender of the 
liberty of our country ! 

New York, October, 1869. 



THE CUBAN CONSTITUTION. 



Adopted by the Constitutional Convention, and unanimously ap- 
proved by the Cuban Congress assembled at G-uaimaro, the Provisional 
capital of the Republic, on the tenth day of April, a.d. 1869, and the 
first year of the Independence of Cuba. 

Article I. The Legislative Power shall be vested in a House of Rep- 
resentatives. 

II. To this Body shall be delegated an equal representation from 
each of the four States into which the Island of Cuba shall be divided. 

III. These States are Oriente, Gamaguey, Las Villas, and Occidente. 

IV. No one shall be eligible as Representative of any of these States 
except a citizen of the Republic who is upward of 20 years of age. 

V. No Representative of any State shall hold any other official posi- 
tion during his representative term. 

VI. Whenever a vacancy occurs in the representation of any State, 
the Executive thereof shall have power to fill such vacancy until the 
ensuing election. 

VII. The House of Representatives shall elect a President of the 
Republic, a General-in-Chief of its armies, a President of the Congress, 
and other executive officers. The General-in-Chief shall be subordinate 
to the Executive, and shall render him an account of the performance of 
his duties. 

VIII. The President of the Republic, the General-in-Chief, and the 
Members of the House of Representatives are amenable to charges which 
may be made by any citizen to the House of Representatives, who shall 
proceed to examine into the charges preferred ; and if, in their judgment, 



26 

it be necessary, the case of the accused shall be submitted to the 
Judiciary. 

IX. The House of Representatives shall have full power to dismiss 
from office any functionary whom they have appointed. 

X. The legislative acts and decisions of the House of Representatives, 
in order to be valid and binding, must have the sanction of the Pres- 
ident of the Republic. 

XI. If the President fail to approve the acts and decisions of the 
House, he shall, without delay, return the same with his objections there- 
to, for the reconsideration of that body. 

XII. Within ten days after their reception, the President shall return 
all bills, resolutions, and enactments which may be sent to him by the 
House for his approval, with his sanction thereof, or with his objections 
thereto. 

XIII. Upon the passage of any act, bill, or resolution, after a recon- 
sideration thereof by the House, it shall be sanctioned by the President. 

XIV. The House of Representatives shall legislate upon taxation, 
public loans, and ratification of treaties; and shall have power to 
declare and conclude war, to authorize the President to issue letters of 
marque, to raise troops and provide for their support, to organize and 
maintain a navy, and to regulate reprisals as to the public enemy. 

XV. The House of Representatives shall remain in permanent session 
from the time of the ratification of this fundamental law by the people 
until the termination of the war with Spain. 

XVI. The Executive power shall be vested in the President of the 
Republic. 

XVII. No one shall be eligible, to the Presidency who is not a native 
of the Republic, and over 30 years of age. 

XVIII. All treaties made by the President may be ratified by the 
House of Representatives. 

XIX. The President shall have power to appoint ambassadors, minis- 
ters-plenipotentiary, and consuls of the Republic to foreign countries. 

XX. The President shall treat with ambassadors, and shall see that 



27 

the laws are faithfully executed. He shall also issue official commissions 
to all the functionaries of the Kepublic. 

XXI. The President shall propose the names for the members of his 
Cabinet to the House of Kepresentatives for its approval. 

XXn. The Judiciary shall form an independent co-ordinate depart- 
ment of the Government, under the organization of a special law. 

XXIII. Voters are required to possess the same qualifications as to 
age and citizenship as the members of the House of Representatives. 

XXIV. All the inhabitants of the Republic of Cuba are absolutely 
free. 

XXV. All the citizens are considered as soldiers of the Liberating 
Army. 

XXVI. The Republic shall not bestow dignities, titles, nor special 
privileges. 

XXVII. The citizens of the Republic shall not accept honors nor 
titles from foreign countries. 

XXVIII. The House of Representatives shall not abridge the freedom 
of religion, nor of the press, nor of public meetings, nor of education, nor 
of petition, nor any inalienable right of the people. 

XXIX. This Constitution can be amended only by the unanimous 
concurrence of the House of Representatives. 

Nota Bene — Here follow the signatures of Caelos Manuel de Ces- 
pedes, President of the Convention, and of all of the Delegates. 

We, the undersigned, hereby certify and declare that the foregoing is 
a correct and faithful translation of the Cuban Constitution, and of each 
and every article and clause thereof, and that the same is the fundament- 
al and supreme law of the Republic. 

Done by order of the Junta Cubana, at the city of ISTew York, in the 
United States of America, this 17th day of November, a.d. 1869, and 
the second year of the Independence of Cuba. 

MIGUEL DE ALDAMA, President. 
J. M. Mestre, Seeretary. 



SLATEEY IN CUBA. 



ELOQUENT REFUTATION OP MR. SUMNER'S SPEECH. 

The Anti- Slavery Standard this week forcibly removes the only sup- 
port to Mr. Sumner's lame excuse for lack of practical sympathy with 
the Cuban revolutionists, by publishing the following letter and sus- 
taining its statements in a strong leading editorial : 

New York, September 23, 1869. 
To Mr. Charles Sumner, 

Senator for Massachusetts : 

Sir — In January last, at the Anti-Slavery Conference in Boston, I 
had the honor of publicly stating, in the name of the Cuban insurrec- 
tionists, and in answer to certain calumnies then afloat, that Cespedes 
and his party unhesitatingly accepted the necessity of the abolition of 
slavery in Cuba, and that their best and most willing exertions sought 
for immediate and unconditional emancipation. The gist of my state- 
ment was, at the same date, embodied in one of the resolutions of the 
Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. 

At an interview which I had with you in April last, I spoke to the 
same purpose. You probably have forgotten my remarks. I refer to 
these two occasions only to show that so early as in January the public 
mind was directed to this question, and that, at the latest, in April, your 
own attention was asked to it also. 

I find in the published reports of your speech at Worcester, before 
the Republican State Convention, on the 22d inst., the following 
paragraph, which, if correctly reported (I copy from the Tribune), 
must, of course, be taken as your deliberate utterance. It is not before 
such an audience and upon so grave a question as one involving the honor 
of one country and the liberty — it may be the life — of another, that a 



29 

man like Charles Sumner speaks without duly weighing the purport and 
importance of his words. You are reported to have said — speaking of 
the Cubans and their claims to be recognized as belligerents : 

" There is another question in their case which is with me final. Even 
if they come within the prerequisites of international law, I am unwil- 
ling to make any recognition of them so long as they continue to hold 
human beings as slaves. A decree, in May last, purporting to be signed 
by Cespedes, abolished slavery ; but I am not sure of this decree, espe- 
cially in view of another, in July, purporting to come from the same 
authority, maintaining slavery. Until this is settled we must wait." 

What, Mr. Sumner ! coming forward as the reverend adviser of your 
State in one of its highest functions, can you only counsel abstinence 
from action until you have settled a question which you think should be 
conclusive (one way at least), but which from July to September you 
have not troubled yourself to settle even to your own satisfaction, al- 
though it be only an inquiry as to the authenticity of two contradictory 
documents, proof concerning which has always been at your command ? 

What, Mr. Sumner ! taking honorable rank among those ennobled by 
their sympathy for the slave, do you forbid our sympathy with 'the 
Cuban slave, declaring yourself willing to hand him back to Spanish 
bonds, because you do not know for certain, and do not care to know, 
whether Cespedes has made him free or not ? 

Cespedes has made him free, be you never so loath to recognize the 
fact. On the 27th of December, 1868, Cespedes, in his capacity as Cap- 
tain-General of the Army of Liberation, decreed the abolition of slavery, 
which decree was affirmed by the Assembly of the leading patriots of the 
Central Department on the 6th of February following, and reaffirmed as 
an integral part of the Constitution of the Republic, agreed to at Guai- 
maro on the 10th of April, 1869, according to which, Article 24, u All 
the inhabitants of the Bepublic are entirely free." Entirely — the Spanish 
word is enteramente. What Mr. Sumner means by his two contradictory 
decrees of " May" and " July " some Spaniard may be able to tell. No 
Cuban can inform me. 

I add that the conduct of Cespedes since (as also during his whole 
life), has been in strict conformity with that December decree, and that 
no other proclamation has been issued, or act done by him, or with his 
authority to contradict, or contravene, or in any way to counteract .or in- 
validate that. 

If you will not credit this on the assertion of those friends of Cuba, 
and of slave emancipation in Cuba, whose integrity and reliability can 
be vouched for by your own personal friends, by your tried comrades in 



30 

the Anti-Slavery party, then bring forward your Spanish friends, Mr. 
Sumner, to disprove my statement. Yet El Gronista, the organ of the 
extremest Spanish party, only last week made an argument against the 
patriots on the very ground of this well-known emancipation of the slaves. 
Truly, Mr. Sumner, for a man specially interested in questions of slav- 
ery, you must have had some difficulty in maintaining so satisfactory an 
ignorance. 

The cause of Cuban freedom is the cause of the black as well as of the 
white. The dullest Spanish " Volunteer " knows this, if the Massachu- 
setts senator does not. Is there none, except a man so prominent 
among American Republicans and Abolitionists, to stand foremost against 
the liberties of Cuba ? 

Let General Sickles pursue his intrigues for annexation. On that 
ground it may be expedient to delay the recognition of independence. 
What matter how black or white may suffer, or how long, or with what 
old Spanish horrors the contest be embittered and prolonged, if so new 
territory may be stolen. The game there is clear enough — increase of 
empire at the cost of the annexed. But Sickles and his party at least are 
free from the cant of an ex-Abolitionist's tender conscience, from the pre- 
tense of sympathy for the Cuban slave. 

Sympathy for the Cuban slave ! Since Cespedes began the war of 
emancipation, nigh twelve months ago, Charles Sumner, the eminently 
liberal statesman of America, the head — if not the heart — of the very 
Republican party, has not found a precedent to justify him in one gen- 
erous word toward a new Republic; Charles Sumner, the old-time 
Abolitionist, has not even asked for a justification to plead the cause of 
abolitionism in Cuba. 

Butler, and Banks, and Rawlins could frankly give expression to at 
least some words of good-will, of encouragement, and hope ; Sumner only 
mutters in bad Spanish his siander and his doubt. Nay, it is not slander, it 
is but a politic hesitation, the prudent statesman's halt. Behold him on 
his pedestal of legal precedents, self-satisfied though he find not a pre- 
cedent for American independence in the whole lot. How the forensic 
drapery becomes him ! In either hand he fumbles a proclamation, and 
looks in his bewilderment from one to the other, waiting for some one 
to tell him which is genuine and which forged before he can advise his 
listeners to do anything but — " wait ! " 

And when that is settled he will be no readier. He will still have to 
sit down among his volumes and pore over them to seek his precedent — 
a precedent he does not want to find. Does he not tell us that Poland 
and Hungary were as far off as Cuba from any right to recognition as 



31 

belligerents, from any right to fight against tyranny and be recognized 
as true fighters by those who themselves have rebelled against and over- 
come their tyrants ? Nay, does he not tell New England that he places 
Poland, Hungary, and Cuba all in the same category with the South, 
branding them all as rebels — yes, gentlemen, all rebels ! I, Charles Sum- 
ner, can find no precedent for recognizing them as anything else. Then, 
having sunk the Republican in the " Statesman," he loses the Statesman 
in maundering about the Alabama ; and Cuba must be sacrificed lest his 
old monarchical acquaintances, the politicians and publicists of Europe, 
should say that Mr. Sumner is inconsistent. 

Let the Alabama stand on its own merits, Mr. Sumner ! If England 
has done the wrong you say, be sure the penalty will have some day to 
be exacted, whatever happens to your arguments. Destiny can spare the 
biggest flies that pose themselves upon her chariot wheels. But beware 
now of wrong to Cuba ! That is the question of the hour, and one 
question at a time may be enough even for statesmen of a considerable 
bore. 

But is there no precedent for action in the case of Cuba ? Step from 
Worcester to the Capitol ! There is a monument upon Bunker's Hill. 
Do justice to Cuba as your fathers there did justice to themselves — for 
the sake of justice, and not for policy or greed. Do justice with only 
that for precedent. Do justice, though your Alabama speech be stulti- 
fied. Better spoil that than stultify the soul and spoil the fame of a con- 
sistent abolitionist with the unmanly quibble that you can not distinguish 
the proclamations of Cespedes, and have been too indifferent to read his 
course. 

A scholar, making of established forms your idols, a student of books 
rather than an observer of the course of living men, you have read but 
not learned history ; and the science of politics is something quite dis- 
tinct from the charlatanry of diplomatists. We might forgive you for 
your unrepublican sympathies, seeing you have not yet been weaned from 
constitutionalism, but we had a right to look for soundness on the one 
question of black slavery. When Charles Sumner, the honorable sena- 
tor for Massachusetts, is remembered in history, will his epitaph be read 
for anything of more worth than this — He also was of the Anti-Slavery 
party ? Must we efface that line to write — He hindered the emancipation 
of the Cuban slave ? 

That brief paragraph of your unhappy speech at Worcester has given 
the lie to the long life of the abolitionist. As it was with Webster, so it 
is with you : the Statesman has betrayed the Man. 

W. J. LINTON. 



JUSTICE TO CUBA. 



CUBAN BELLIGERENCY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE UNITED STATES ACCORD- 
ING TO IMPORTANT OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS — THE COURTS OF 
THE UNION BOUND TO DEAL WITH THE CUBANS AS BELLIGERENTS. 

The United States Government has acknowledged the existence of a 
civil war in Cuba, inasmuch as it has mediated between the contending 
parties, or at least tendered its good offices to settle the difficulty giving 
rise to that war. 

In Wheaton's Reports, vol. 3, p. 610, the case of the Spanish " Indus- 
trie Raphaelli " is referred to as follows : 

"When a civil war rages in a foreign nation, one part of which 
separates itself from the old, established government and erects itself into 
a distinct government, the courts of the Union must view such newly 
established government as it is viewed by the legislative and executive 
departments of the United States. 

" If that government remains neutral, but recognizes the existence of 
civil war, the courts of the Union can not consider as criminal those acts 
of hostility which war authorizes, .and which the new government may 
direct against its enemy. 

" The same testimony which would be sufficient to prove that a ves- 
sel or person is in the service of an acknowledged State is admissible to 
prove that they are in the service of such newly-erected government. Its 
seal can not be allowed to prove itself, but may be proved by such testi- 
mony as the nature of the case admits ; and the fact that a vessel or per- 
son is in the service of such government maybe established otherwise, 
should it be impracticable to prove the seal. 



33 

u The general principle applied by the writers on the law of nations 
in the case of a civil war considers the war (as between the conflicting 
parties) as just on both sides, and that each is to treat the other as a pub- 
lic enemy, according to the established usages of war. So, also, it is the 
duty of other nations to remain neutral, and not interfere with the exer- 
tion of complete belligerent rights of both parties within the territory 
which is the scene of their hostilities." 

Dr. Franklin held that to deny belligerent rights to a State because it 
had not been recognized as independent is a doctrine of the dark ages, 
unworthy of civilized nations. 

In Sparks' 'Diplomatic Correspondence," vol. 3, p. 121, appears the 
following note to Mr. Bernstoof, Minister of Foreign Affairs in Denmark, 
viz. : 

Passt, December 22, 1779. 

Sir — I have received a letter from Mr. De Chezauly, Consul of France 
at Bergen, in Norway, acquainting me that two ships, viz., the Betzey 
and the Union, prizes taken from the English on their coast by Captain 
Laudais, commander of the Alliance frigate appertaining to the United 
States of America, which prizes, having met with bad weather at sea that 
had damaged their rigging and had occasioned leaks, and been weakly 
manned, had taken shelter in the supposed neutral port of Bergen, in 
order to repair their damages, procure an additional number of sailors, 
and the necessary refreshments ; that they were in the said port enjoying, 
as they conceived, the common rights of hospitality, established and 
practised by civilized nations, under the care of the above said Consul, 
when, on the 28th of October last, the said ships, with their cargoes and 
papers, were suddenly seized by officers of his Majesty the King of Den- 
mark, to whom the said port belongs, the American officers and seamen 
turned out of their possession, and the whole delivered to the English 
Consul. 

Mr. De Chezauly has also sent me the following as a translation of his 
Majesty's order by which the above proceedings are said to be authorized, 
viz. : 

" The English Minister having insisted on the restitution of two vessels 
which had been taken by the American privateer called the Alliance, 
commanded by Captain Laudais, and which, were brought into Bergen — 
viz., the Betzey, of Liverpool, and the Union, of London — his Majesty has 
granted this demand on this account, because he has not as yet acknowl- 

3 



34 

edged the independence of the colonies associated against England; and 
because that these vessels, for this reason, can not be considered as good 
and lawful prizes. Therefore, the said two ships shall be immediately 
liberated and allowed to depart with their cargoes." 

By a subsequent letter from the same Consul, I am informed that a 
third prize belonging to the United States, viz., the Charming Polly, 
which arrived in Bergen after the others, has also been seized and deliv- 
ered up in the same manner, and that all the people of the three vessels, 
after being thus stripped of their property (for every one had an interest 
in the prizes), were turned on shore to shift for themselves, without 
money in a strange place, no provision being made for their subsistence 
or for sending them back to their country. 

Permit me, sir, to observe on this occasion that the United States of 
America Lave no war but with the English ; they have never done any 
injury to other nations, particularly none to the Danish nation ; on the 
contrary, they are, in some degree, its benefactors, as they have opened a 
trade of which the English made a monopoly, and of which the Danes 
may have now their share ; and, by dividing the British empire, have 
made it less dangerous to its neighbors. They conceived that every 
nation whom they had not offended was, by the rights of humanity, their 
friend; they confided in the hospitality of Denmark, and thought them- 
selves and their property safe when under the roof of his Danish Majesty. 
But they find themselves stripped of that property, and the same given 
up to their enemies on this principle only, that no acknowledgment had 
yet been formally made by Denmark of the independence of the United 
States ; which is to say that there is no obligation of justice toward any 
nation with whom a treaty promising the same has not been previously 
made. This was indeed the doctrine of ancient barbarians, a doctrine 
long since exploded, and which it would not be for the honor of the pres- 
ent age to revive, and it is hoped that Denmark will not, by supporting 
and persisting in this decision, obtained of his Majesty apparently by 
surprise, bs the first modern nation that shall attempt to revive it. 

The United States, oppressed by and at war with one of the most 
powerful nations of Europe, may well be supposed incapable, in their 
present infant state, of exacting justice' of other nations not disposed to 
grant it ; but it is human nature that injuries as well as benefits received 
in time of weakness and distress, national as well as personal, make deep 
and lasting impressions ; and those ministers are wise who look into fu- 
turity and quench the first sparks of misunderstanding between two 
nations, which, neglected, may in time grow into a flame, all the con- 
sequences whereof no human prudence can foresee, which may produce, 



much mischief to both, and can not possibly produce any good to either. 
I beg leave, through your Excellency, to submit these considerations to 
the wisdom and justice of his Danish Majesty, whom I infinitely respect, 
and who, I hope, will consider and repeal the orders above recited, and 
that, if the prizes which I hereby reclaim in behalf of the United States 
of America are not actually gone to England, they may be stopped 
and delivered to Mr. De Ohezauly, the Consul of France at Bergen, in 
whose care they before were, with liberty to depart for America when 
the season shall permit. But, if they should be already gone to England, 
I must claim from his Majesty's equity the value of the said prizes, which 
is estimated at £50,000 sterling, but which may be regulated by the best 
information that can by any means be obtained. With the greatest 
respect, 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN. 



CUBAN PRIVATEERS CAN NOT BE TREATED AS PIRATES. 

Opinions of the Attorneys-General of the United States, etc., publish- 
ed under the inspection of Henry D. Gelpin. Vol. II., pp. 1065. Wash- 
ington city, 1841. 

i 

Attorney-General's Office, May 17, 1836. 

Sir — From an examination of the various documents this clay referred 
to me in the case of the Texan armed schooner Invincible, I gather the 
following facts : 

The American brig Pocket sailed from New Orleans, in which port 
she had been duly registered, and cleared in April last for Brazos San- 
tiago, a port within the limits of Texas. When approaching the term- 
ination of her voyage she was captured by the armed Texan schooner In- 
vincible, sailing under the flag of the recently constituted rejmblic of 
Texas, on the alleged ground that she was laden with provisions, stores, 
and munitions of war destined for the use of the Mexican army under 
the command of General Santa Anna, and carried into Galveston bay, 
where the cargo was landed and used or held by the Texan authorities, 
and the vessel released. These facts being made known to Commodore 
Dalles, the officer commanding the United States naval forces in the West 
Indies and the Gulf of Mexico, with a sworn appeal from the insurers and 
other persons interested in the protection of our commerce of those seas, 



36 

that officer deemed it his duty to regard the Invincible as a pirate, and to 
treat her as such. He, therefore, promptly despatched the United States 
ship Warren, Master Commandant Taylor, with orders to cruise for the 
Invincible, and, in the event of falling in with her, to capture her and 
send her to New Orleans to be delivered up for adjudication. Pursuant 
to these orders the Invincible was captured on the 29th ult., with the 
principal part of the crew. Both vessel and men were sent to New Or- 
leans, and delivered to the civil authorities to be proceeded against on 
the charge of piracy. Under these circumstances, my opinion is required 
upon the question whether the charge of piracy can be sustained. 

In answer to this question I have the honor to state that, in my opin- 
ion, the capture of the American ship Pocket can in no view of it be 
deemed an act of piracy, unless it should appear that the principal actors 
in the capture were citizens of the United States. The ninth section of 
the Crimes act of the 30th of April, 1790, declares " That if any citizen 
shall commit any piracy or robbery, or any act of hostility against the 
United States, or any citizen thereof, upon the high seas, under color of 
any commission from any foreign prince or State, or on pretense of 
authority from any person, such offender shall, notwithstanding the pre- 
tense of any such authority, be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a 
pirate, felon, and robber ; and, on being thereof convicted, shall suffer 
death." This provision is yet in force, and should it be found that any 
of those who participated in the capture of the Pocket are American 
citizens, the flag and commission of the government of Texas would be 
insufficient to protect them from the charge of piracy. It is, however, 
not suggested in the papers before me that any citizens of the United 
States were engaged in the capture, and if it is assumed that the actors 
in it were aliens, it must then, I think, be admitted that the capture, 
however unjustifiable in other respects, can never be regarded as piracy. 
Where a civil war breaks out in a foreign nation, and part of such nation 
erects a distinct and separate government, and the United States, though 
they do not acknowledge the independence of the new government, do yet 
recognize the existence of a civil war, our courts have uniformly regarded 
each party as a belligerent nation in regard to acts done jure belli. Such 
may be unlawful when measured by the laws of nations, or by treaty 
stipulations ; the individuals concerned in them may be treated as tres- 
passers, and the nation to which they belong may be held responsible by 
the United States ; but the parties concerned are not treated as pirates. 
It is true that where persons acting under a commission for one of the 
belligerents make a capture ostensibly in the right of war, but really 
with the design of robbery, they will be held guilty of piracy. In the 



37 

present case there is not the least reason to believe that the capture was 
made with any such criminal intent. It would seem to be an infraction 
of the treaty made in 1831 between the United States and the United Mexi- 
can States (of which Texas was then a constituent part), and here may be 
other reasons for doubting its legality as an act done in the right of war ; 
but that it was really done in that character, and no other, is very clear. 
The existence of a civil war between the people of Texas and the authori- 
ties and people of the other Mexican States was recognized by the President 
of the United States at an early day in the month of November last. 
Official notice of this fact, and of the President's intention to preserve the 
neutrality of the United States, was soon after given to the Mexican 
Government. This recognition has been since repeated by numerous acts 
of the Executive, several of which had taken place before the capture of 
the Pocket. On the assumption that the actors were aliens, the case is 
therefore fairly brought within the principle above stated, and the charge 
of piracy can not be sustained." 



I am, sir, etc., 
To the President of the United States. 



B. P. BUTLEE. 



The ports of the United States should be open to Cuba on an equality 
with Spain, according to the following declaration of the Executive, 
namely : 

MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE COMMENCE- 
MENT OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE SIXTEENTH CONGRESS (COMMUNI- 
CATED TO CONGRESS DECEMBER 7, 1819). 

In the civil war existing between Spain and the Spanish provinces in 
this hemisphere, the greatest care has been taken to enforce the laws in- 
tended to preserve an impartial neutrality. Our ports have continued to 
be equally open to both parties, and on the same conditions, and our citi- 
zens have been equally restrained from interfering in favor of either to 
the prejudice of the other. The progress of the war, however, has oper- 
ated manifestly in favor of the colonies. Buenos Ayres still maintaining 
unshaken the independence which it declared in 1816, and has enjoyed 
since 1810. Like success has also attended Chile and the provinces north 
of La Plata bordering on it, and likewise Venezuela. 



38 



THE UNITED STATES ACKNOWLEDGE OFFICIALLY THE RIGHTS OF EVERY 
AMERICAN COLONY WHICH REVOLTS AGAINST ITS METROPOLIS. 

The Union admits the flag of every insurrectionary party against the 
metropolitan government, provided it pays custom dues. 

American State papers collected by Walter Lowry and Walter S. 
Franklin, vol. iv. pp. 424 and 656. 

MONROE, SECRETARY OF STATE, TO ME. ORRIS, JANUARY 19, 1816. 

****** 

You demand next that Mr. Toledo and others whom you mention, 
charged with promoting revolt in the Spanish provinces and exciting- 
citizens of the United States to join it, shall be arrested and tried, their 
troops disarmed and dispersed. 

You intimate that troops are levying in Kentucky, Tennessee, Loui- 
siana, and Georgia for the invasion of the Spanish provinces, of whom one 
thousand are from Kentucky, and three hundred from Tennessee, to be 
commanded by American citizens ; but you do not state at what points 
these men are collected, or by whom commanded, and as to the troops 
said to be raised in Louisiana and Georgia your communication is still 
more indefinite. The information recently obtained by this department 
from persons of high consideration is of a very different character. It is 
stated that no men are collected, nor is there evidence of an attempt or a 
design to collect any in Kentucky, Tennessee, or Georgia for the purpose 
stated, and that the force said to be assembled under Mr. Toledo is very 
inconsiderable, and composed principally of Spaniards and Frenchmen. 
If any portion of it consists of citizens of the United States their conduct 
is unauthorized and illegal. This force is not within the settled parts of 
Louisiana, but in the wilderness, between the settlements of the United 
States and Spain, beyond the actual operation of our laws. 

I have to request that you will have the goodness to state at what 
points in Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Georgia any force is col- 
lected, the number in each instance, and by whom commanded. If such 
force is collected or collecting within the United States for the purpose 
suggested, or other illegal purpose, it will be dispersed and the parties 
prosecuted according to law. 

The government is under no obligation, nor has it the power by any 
law or treaty to surrender any inhabitant of Spain or the Spanish pro- 
vinces on the demand of the government of Spain ; nor is any such in- 
habitant punishable by the laws of the United States for acts committed 
beyond their jurisdiction, the Cases of pirates alone excepted. This is A 



39 

fundamental law of our system. It is not, however, confined to us ; it is 
believed to be the law of all civilized nations where not particularly 
varied by treaties. 

In reply to your third demand — the exclusion of the flag of the revolt- 
ing provinces — I have to observe that, in consequence of the unsettled 
state of many countries, and repeated changes of the ruling authority in 
each, there being at the same time several competitors and each party 
bearing its appropriate flag, the President thought it proper some time 
past to give orders to the collectors not to make the flag of any vessel a 
criterion or condition of its admission into the ports of the United States. 

Having taken no part in the differences and convulsions which have 
disturbed those countries, it is consistent with the just principles as it is 
with the interests of the United States to receive the vessels of all coun- 
tries into their ports, to whatever party belonging, and under whatever 
flag sailing, pirates excepted, requiring of them only the payment of the 
duties and obedience to the laws while under their jurisdiction, without 
adverting to the question whether they had committed any violation of 
the allegiance or laws obligatory on them in the country to whom they 
belonged, either in assuming such flag, or in any other respect. 

In the differences which have subsisted between Spain and her colonies 
the United States have observed all proper respect to their friendly rela- 
tions with Spain. * * * All that your government had a 
right to claim of the United States was that they should not interfere in 
the contest, or promote by any active service the success of the revolution, 
admitting that they continued to overlook the injuries received from 
Spain, and remained at peace. This right was common to the colonists. 
With equal justice might they claim that we would not interfere to their 
disadvantage ; that our ports should remain open to both parties, as they 
were before the commencement of the struggle ; that our laws regulating 
commerce with foreign nations should not be changed to their injury. 
On these principles the United States have acted. 

I have the honor to be, etc., 

JAMES MONROE. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




015 814 081 



/ 



